I vaguely remember the Gospel of Thomas being dated to the later half of the first century. Then there is all of that Q nonsense. Q is also dated to the first centruy.
"Besides, it's easy to accept Christ as your personal savior when he looks like Willem Dafoe." -- Ann Magnuson, in Bongwater's "Folk Song" from the "Power of p***y" album.
MadMax, I just really respect those who can view something like that and keep it in perspective. I personally believe that fictional accounts of Jesus' life do much more good than harm in that if the piece inspires one, that person may go out and seek other information, thus enhancing one's own spiritual growth. That's not to say that I completely dimiss criticisms of blasphemy towards fictional works either. I can understand why a devout Christian would be upset at watching their Savior be tricked by the devil. I personally disagree as I feel that one's faith could become complacent if never challenged directly (even though there are challenges to one's faith everyday), but I'm not going to criticize their feelings...maybe their manner of expressing their frustrations, though. That being said, brobek's awesome too!
I just remember when The Last Temptation of Christ came out it was immediately blasted by the Catholic church and numerous people who haven't seen it. My wife and I watched it and thought it was a very good, interesting movie that brought more of a humanization to Christ that you don't generally see represented. You should be able to put aside your bias and see other's perspectives on your beliefs and teachings, especially when "reasonably" done. You don't have to agree with the representation, but to simply dismiss it as blasphemy or disrespectful without viewing it is a bit shortsighted.
i find the gospel of thomas to be a bait and switch...not the gospel, itself, but how it is portrayed. it contains many of the words of Christ that are nearly word for word from Mark and the others. it adds others in...but the concepts aren't really that foreign to me, as a Christian. the idea that the kingdom of god is right here and now is exactly what Christ taught. the church has allowed, in many ways, christianity to devolve into a religion for the dead...were the afterlife is the key concern. but jesus was all about justice in the here and now...and righteousness in the here and now. the gospel of thomas just has more of a less linear approach to the story, which is fine with me...it just sorta runs against roman/western thought where all logic has to be linear. read great books of the OT like ecclesiaties, and you see that some of the greatest thought is quite circular. you're right...now that i think about it, i've seen the gospel of thomas dated to around the same time as the canonical gospels and later in the 2nd century, as well. (looking over my post above, i realized i just rambled like crazy...sorry!)
agreed.. the humanity of Jesus makes me love him so much more...that he must have been tempted at some point to go, "you know what? screw this! forget you guys...no one is listening...you're threatening me at every turn...and now you're leading me to the most miserable execution you can think of." the temptation to just kick ass, as i believe he certainly had the power to do...and yet he goes with humility and literally prays for the forgiveness of those who torture him. there's a song by the David Crower Band that has line after line of praise for God...and one of the lines is, "it's the way you felt all that i feel." God humbling Himself to not just sympathize, but to empathize...to literally know the temptation of sin. man, i dig that about Him.
Great points Max, I was going to post something along these lines myself, which would have been less concise, and more unclear. Thanks. I also want to point out that Many people believe Q to be the gospel of Thomas.
For the ignorant, Q is said to be a source document for both the Gospel of Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) or so say some German biblical scholars. There are no extant copies of Q. I vaguely recalled that Q's origin's are speculated to be from a Gnostic sect, possibly Thomas.
yeah...some do speculate that. others speculate that Thomas was written much later and that Q is just some other document. given the earlier creeds and the fact that Paul's writings predate the gospels, i tend to lean toward the latter. this is an example of one of the "creeds" that is cited in the earliest Christian works (i can't remember what that freaking thing is called...it's the dia something) and one that Paul writes about to the believers in Corinth..note that he says he is telling them what he also received, giving it authority as it is not of him: 1 Cor. 15:3-7: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
I know, I was just trying to present the author's argument, which goes along with the other "anti-semitism" angle. I agree about it being a movie based on the gospels and, thus, they are all that matter (although he did take some liberties, apparently...so is that cheating?). The thing I think the critics are saying is that it is not a responsible way of making a movie 2000 years later. None of this is new, of course, but I guess the graphic nature of the movie makes some fear a reaction along the lines of violent video games creating violence in real life. Again, we won't know until/if we see lines of skinheads at the theaters, etc.. I will see the movie, by the way. I see/read pretty much every Jesus-inspired book, movie, musical, play, etc.. Love it.
This film should not be about who killed Jesus because it was the devine will of God for him to die. The focus should be on what He suffered to save the world from sin.
I don't believe in the bible stuff but I agree with what you said. It sort of misses the point *if* the movies focuses on that.
According to the filmmaker, Gibson, and everyone I know who has seen it, and all accounts of those who've seen it who I don't know...the movie is very clearly not about who killed Jesus. It certainly is in the movie...but the movie is about Christ's suffering in the last 12 hours before his death.
And what I've heard and seen is that the Jews were portrayed as not just guilty, but sinister. The question remains whether they were all protrayed that way. If they were, then gibson will have clouded any messages he wanted to deliver about Jesus in an attempt to make the movie more successful. Again, we'll see.
i understand your concerns...truly. in the gospels, the sanhedrin is definitely protrayed as somewhat sinister...i mean, they're very threatened by this man and where his teachings run contrary to theirs..and are greatly offended by the blasphemy he speaks when he equates himself to God. the masses who put great faith in the sanhedrin share those same concerns. i don't think gibson is changing the story at all as it is presented in any of the gospel accounts...in fact, he even deleted a part of the movie where Caiphas, the chief priest, said, "his blood will be on us" or something to that effect...that line came directly from scripture. but gibson points out time and time again that everyone failed jesus...not just the jewish leaders but his own disciples, who were essentially new christians...to the romans who never once stopped this injustice, even if they saw it as unjust. ultimately what is written in the gospels was the model for what gibson wanted to portray...if anything, he's backed stuff out that is in the gospel that he thought might offend, particularly the caiphas line. but pilate is actually quoted in the new testament saying that this is not his decision...that he's just giving in to the whims of the masses. in my mind, that doesn't make pilate any less culpable....but, again, i feel that even i'm quite culpable. entirely culpable, in fact. whether or not anyone chooses to believe that is an entirely different issue...to a director who is trying to tell a story already told, it's a matter of staying true to the story he's trying to place on film.
Max, Again, we'll see. We'll see if some Jews are seen in a good light. There certainly are those who do, or at least no worse than gentiles (when it comes to Jesus). I also don't place as much faith in every word in the bible as you do. And where the Catholic church is involved, I trust even less. There is a long record of being self-serving, and I'm sure that it would have looked odd if the Romans were to bear the brunt of the responsibility for Jesus' death (that is, per the bible).
That is the exact point. Jesus' main crudade during his life, and what eventually got him killed was the fight against Temple corruption. So we know that the bad main bad guys that Jesus goes against will be Jewish. But like cohen said the key will be whether or not all Jews outside of JEsus himself will be portrayed as bad. If the rest of the movie is good it would be ashamed to ruin an otherwise good movie with something like that. Any good 'messages' that might otherwise be conveyed will be lost.
then your problem is with the Bible..not with Mel Gibson. he's merely recounting a story as it's told. i'm really not trying to be argumentative...but i'm frustrated by the idea that if he presents the story the way it's told in the bible he's anti-semitic...if that's the case, then the bible itself is anti-semitic, and i find that to be a ridiculous assertion since it's written primarily by jews.
